Urban Houston Framework SAC Web Meeting March 27th Houston, Texas

Transcription

1

2 petersgroup consulting

3 Agenda Introduction Overall process (schedule, scope) Review of Vision Workshop Pilot Projects Discussion Westchase Montrose-Westheimer OST/Griggs Moving Towards Conclusions Process Criteria Tools/Expectations For each Pilot Project we will discuss 1. What could be developed today? Assumptions 2. What would result from proposed plan? Scenario Evaluation of achievement of goals 3. What would you change about this scenario? Next Steps

4 Introduction

5 Introduction: Purpose and Outcomes Purpose? To encourage urban areas that encompass regional sustainability principles of live, work and play Ultimate results expected from this study? Develop a framework of policy tools and development incentives to encourage and incentivize Urban Centers Use to promote consistent, sustainable development strategies throughout the City Use the process to heighten knowledge of and commitment to a better urban form

6 Introduction: Project Timeline February/March April/May SAC Meeting Feb. 13th, 9-11am SAC Meeting Feb. 13th, 14 th SAC Meeting March 27th, 9-11 Online Poll 2 Begins April 8th Interim Report to City/H-GAC April 4th SAC Meeting April 11th, 9-11 SAC Meeting May 1st, 9-11 Final Report to City/H-GAC May 1st Final Report Published May 20th

7 Blog: UrbanHoustonFramework.com 1,746 blog viewers, 254 participants Online Poll: UrbanHouston.MetroQuest.com New Poll Launches Monday, April 8 th UrbanHoustonFramework@Houstontx.gov 62 comments submitted to date

8 Review of Vision Workshop

9 Keypad Polling: Top Ranked Tools by Center Size 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% assistance/fee waivers for mixed use housing utility infrastructure tax abatements city coordinated stormwater facilities stormwater treatment credit city published urban center infrastructure plan low impact development (LID) street abandonment parkland dedication build to property line allowance onsite parking special parking area/ benefit district urban center vision plan promoting sustainable design pedestrian realm improvement tax abatement traffic impact analysis waiver downtown setbacks urban center traffic impact study urban trail networks LARGE CENTERS MEDIUM CENTERS SMALL CENTERS NONE

10 Keypad Polling: Additional Tools Commentary Vision Workshop participants Stressed that affordable housing tools/expectations need further refinement. Cited tax abatements as ineffective tools for meeting the infrastructure goals of Urban Centers (rebates were preferred, 380 agreements ideal). Supported low impact development (LID) inclusive tools, however emphasized financial impacts of LID could be exclusionary. Desired more creative, alternatives to parkland dedication and aggregating open spaces or increasing connectivity to parks. Recommended the following tool additions: - Comprehensive housing policy, - Stormwater treatment credits that could be traded or sold, - Special Purpose Urban Districts (SPUDs), and - Cultural/heritage amenity funding.

11 Keypad Polling: Top Ranked Process by Center Size Top Ranked Process by Center Size 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% City Initiated Community Initiated Applicant Initiated LARGE URBAN CENTERS MEDIUM URBAN CENTERS SMALL URBAN CENTERS None

12 Application of Key Findings to Pilot Projects The consultant team applied potential tools to three real life pilot projects analyzed which were most applicable to large, medium or small centers tested whether tools produced desired outcomes identified by stakeholders gained insight as to the validity of various center criteria such as walking distance, roadway proximity and density per acre for achieving long-range and short-range goals of the framework

13 Pilot Project Discussion

14 Overview

15 Westchase Existing Conditions

18 Westchase Base Case Program Building Parking Annual Gross Efficiency Residential 2,080,147 sq.ft. (1,206 units) 840,938 sq.ft. (2,588 spaces) $26,521,875 Multi-family Apartments Commercial Retail Office Hotel 3,246,683 sq.ft. 138,228 sq.ft. 3,050,060 sq.ft. 58,395 sq.ft. 2,706,620 sq.ft. (8,328 spaces) 179,696 sq.ft. (553 spaces) 2,478,174 (7,625 spaces) 48,750 (150 spaces) $123,710,340 $4,845,583 $114,758,508 $4,106,250 Total 5,326,830 sq.ft. 3,547,558 sq.ft. (10,916 spaces) $ 150,232,215 3-D Rendering in Progress Beltway 8

19 Westchase Toolbox Scenario Program Building Parking Annual Gross Efficiency Residential 2,863,000 sq.ft. (2,863 units) 1,163,094 sq.ft. (3,579 spaces) $38,328,413 Multi-Family Apartments Commercial Retail Office Hotel 2,884,040 sq.ft. 321,785 sq.ft. 2,562,255 sq.ft. - 2,036,237 sq.ft. (6,625 spaces) 266,679 (821 spaces) 1,769,557 (5,445 spaces) - $113,069,268 $11,844,182 $101,225,087 - Total Program 5,747,040 sq.ft. 3,199,330 sq.ft. (10,204 spaces) $151,397,682

20 Westchase Results Return on Cost Base Case 9.87% Toolbox Scenario 9.73% Project Valuation (Income Approach) Base Case $1,375.0M Toolbox Scenario $1,384.9M Projected Property Tax at Buildout Base Case $6,147,969 Toolbox Scenario $6,192,234 Projected Sales Tax at Buildout Base Case $264,362 Toolbox Scenario $615,413 Tools Explored Building Setback Reduction Parking Reduction Pedestrian Improvements Budget Item Base Scenario Toolbox Scenario Net Operating Income $98,487,470 $100,009,379 Net Cash Flow before Debt Service $95,404,998 $96,937,104 Land, Site, Parking Costs -$236,640,124 -$279,481,062 Building Hard Costs -$611,442,192 -$573,826,756 Soft Indirect Costs -$163,712,866 -$159,488,071 Total Development Budget -$1,011,795,182 $1,012,795,889

21 Montrose-Westheimer Existing Conditions

25 Montrose-Westheimer Base Case Program Building Parking Annual Gross Efficiency Residential n/a n/a n/a Commercial Retail 48,170 sq.ft. 62,621 sq.ft. 193 spaces Total Building Program 48,170 62, spaces $2,278,441 $2,278,441 Westheimer (70 ROW) Yoakum Montrose (100 ROW) Lovett

26 Montrose-Westheimer Toolbox Scenario Program Building Parking Annual Gross Efficiency Residential Apartments Commercial Retail 583,000 sq.ft. 236,844 sq.ft. 729 spaces 36,370 sq.ft. 30,142 sq.ft. 93 spaces $12,651,392 $1,978,346 Total 619,370 sq.ft. 266,986 sq.ft. 822 spaces Westheimer (70 ROW) $14,629,738 Yoakum Montrose (100 ROW) Lovett

27 Montrose-Westheimer Results Return on Cost Base Case 8.03% Toolbox Scenario 7.88% Project Valuation (Income Approach) Base Case $19.2M Toolbox Scenario $137.2M Estimated Property Tax at Final Buildout Base Case $85,848 Toolbox Scenario $613,456 Projected Sales Tax at Buildout Base Case $92,126 Toolbox Scenario $69,559 Tools Explored Building Setback Reduction Parking Reduction Pedestrian Improvements Budget Item Base Scenario Toolbox Scenario Net Operating Income $1,247,111 $7,731,331 Net Cash Flow before Debt Service $1,209,698 $7,434,192 Land, Site, Parking Costs -$9,099,900 -$21,468,656 Building Hard Costs -$4,595,371 -$61,218,263 Soft Indirect Costs -$1,832,095 -$15,472,065 Total Development Budget -$15,527,366 -$98,158,984

28 OST-Griggs Existing Conditions

31 OST-Griggs Base Case Program Building Parking Annual Gross Efficiency Residential n/a n/a - Commercial Retail 104,715 sq.ft. 115,710 sq.ft. 356 spaces Total Building Program 104,715 sq.ft. 115,710 sq.ft. 356 spaces $2,476,510 $2,476,510

32 OST-Griggs Toolbox Scenario Program Building Parking Residential Apartments Townhomes Commercial Retail Total Building Program 205,588 sq.ft. 233 units 11 units 75,725 sq.ft. 233 spaces 11 spaces 42,725 sq.ft. 35,408 sq.ft. 109 spaces 248,313 sq.ft. 111,133 sq.ft. 244 units 353 spaces Annual Gross Efficiency $2,750,000 $1,162,013 $3,912,013

33 OST-Griggs Results Return on Cost Base Case 7.71% Toolbox Scenario 4.06% Project Valuation (Income Approach) Base Case $16.4M Toolbox Scenario $20.7M Estimated Property Tax at Final Buildout Base Case $73,329 Toolbox Scenario $92,555 Projected Sales Tax at Buildout Base Case $200,268 Toolbox Scenario $81,711 Tools Explored Building Setback Reduction Parking Reduction Pedestrian Improvements Budget Item Base Scenario Toolbox Scenario Net Operating Income $1,352,969 $1,484,887 Net Cash Flow before Debt Service Land, Site, Parking Costs $1,312,380 $1,432,182 -$6,567,125 -$6,846,171 Building Hard Costs -$8,078,463 -$25,933,949 Soft Indirect Costs -$2,894,699 -$6,338,599 Total Development Budget -$17,540,286 -$39,118,719

34 Moving towards Conclusions

35 Process: Alternatives

36 Process: Key Comments from Workshop City Initiated Process Most applicable to Large Urban Centers Should include an option for applicant petition (for all centers) Community Initiated Process A one-size-fits-all solution for opting is not recommended and largely viewed as unfeasible for encouraging private sector buy-in to the program Desire for a flexible application process in which individual property owners unable to meet prerequisite criteria for Small, Medium or Large Centers have access to another avenue for opting in to the Framework Applicant Initiated Process Concern with 5-year eligibility period Changed eligibility period definition to include that applicants have 5 years from date of application to access the Toolbox (rather than 5 years total Toolbox eligibility) Peer Reviews indicated that most other cities implementing Urban Centers require eligibility renewal every 5 years

37 Criteria for Urban Centers Criteria Jobs + Population Density TIRZ or Management District funding mechanism Street Connectivity Bikeways/Pedestrian Accessibility Access to High Quality Transit Accessibility to Amenities Housing Character & Diversity Infill Potential Land Use Diversity Measurement Factors Population Density Job Density Management District TIRZ Street Density Freeway Thoroughfares Local Streets Intersection Density Bikeway Density Trail Density Type of Transit Type of Transit Facilities Transit Frequency and Connectivity Amenity Density Amenity Diversity Local/Regional Amenities Residential Density (Dwelling Units) Housing Type Housing Cost Housing Starts Percent of Vacant Land Improvement to Land Value Ratio below 1% Average Residential/Commercial/Office FAR Land Use Diversity Index Impervious/Pervious Cover Ratio Parks and Open Space

38 Criteria: Discuss!

39 Tools + Expectations: Alternatives 1. Reduced Building Setback and Parking Reduction Developer provides pedestrian realm along adjoining street 2. Parking Benefit Districts Off-site parking within 1/8 mile of main entrance 3. Affordable Housing City is coordinating with consultant on these recommendations 4. Utility and Infrastructure Upgrades Developer reimbursed for a portion of the cost of upgrading infrastructure 5. Low Impact Development Developers must use LID techniques such as pervious paving, rainwater cisterns, bioswales, rain gardens, etc. 6. Stormwater Facilities City will support privately created and maintained large stormwater detention facility that serves multiple developments. 7. Stormwater Treatment Credit Developer may be allowed to treat stormwater within the public ROWs - provided the use does not interfere with pedestrians, bikes or travel ways - and receive credits that could then be traded or sold between adjacent properties within the watershed 9. Access to High Quality and High Capacity Transit METRO & the City will coordinate to provide a high quality and high capacity transit services to Large and Medium Urban Centers 10. Innovative/Sustainability Marketing Campaign Celebrate sustainability & innovative development initiatives through existing or new programs, recognitions, awards etc.

40 Tools + Expectations: Conclusions

41 Next Steps

42 Upcoming events Interim Report to City/H-GAC Online Poll 2 Begins April 4 th April 8 th SAC Meeting (Implementation Workshop) April 11th SAC Meeting Final Report Published May 1st May 20 th

43 Blog: UrbanHoustonFramework.com 1,746 blog viewers, 254 participants Online Poll: UrbanHouston.MetroQuest.com New Poll Launches Monday, April 8 th UrbanHoustonFramework@Houstontx.gov 62 comments submitted to date

44 Questions?